I like the techniques we do when uke attacks with his other hand, e.g. another punch. We abandon the first hand and work the second. We have done this a few times in the last few training sessions, always fun. I am sorry to admit, but I am guilty of this I am the senior in my school by several years, so I don't get pushed that much. However, when I am in the US I get a good flogging Love the advanced classes, as far out of my comfort zone as I can get. Regards,
Hi Graham A technique we use a lot is to slip his first attack and strike to engage his "other" hand pre-empting any second attack.You can see it in my last post. We tend to do this against kicks rather than trap the leg we cut it aside and strike to the face bringing his arm up in defence then executing a technique on that arm.A thing that surprises many is that we do not wait for an attack most of the time we initiate by atemi. The boys are trained to expect an attack while they themselves are attacking. Makes for a good session. pre-empting a stronger opponent's attack.
Sounds similar to the way O'Sensei taught Robuse (ikkyo). "Always initiate the technique." The way Aikido is supposed to be. Regards,
during begining of thread mentioned that a friend was starting to have doubts about the effectiveness of aikido. made the decision to let him read this particular thread. the reaction from what i could tell was something like 'so thats how aikido is suppost to be done'. the different training practices mentioned here and the ideas behind them seemed to be news to him. kind of strange that someone could practice a style for eight years? maybe longer and be suprised to learn the aikido being taught is much different than how its done elsewhere. not sure what he will do with this info. appears to be considering another aikido school. thank all of you for restoring his faith in aikido. and for giving me a better view of the art.
Perhaps you might like to put your opinions on what Aikido should or shouldn't be; to Doshu directly.
Moriteru Ueshiba has his Aikido, through a good lineage. Not being familiar with his Aikido I don't know if he practices techniques similar to O'Sensei. If I went to the Aikikai and I didn't like what I saw, what would my opinion matter to them? I am happy with Yoseikan, it has the important Budo teachings from both Kano Sensei, and O'Sensei, as well as martial effectiveness. I would like to add a quote from O'Sensei: "I have given my life to opening the path of Aikido but when I look back no one is following me." and a coversation he had with a student: american disciple says, "I really want to do your Aikido." Osensei replies, "How unusual! Everyone else wants to do their own Aikido." Regards,
I doubt he would listen. It not like we took up hand holding and gave up our bokken on his say so. The Bear.
It's ok. I hate to use this word, but "shop" around. I can only say it very simply like the others, there are bad and good schools. It's up to you to think carefully and be very thoughtful and critical about your training.
This is a good point. If someone advertises "Aikido for Self Defence" and you don't see it, then be wary. Talk to the instructor, I like to watch the black belts, if you like what the senior students do to each other, then I think it is a good measure. Regards
I'd rather train with the black belts. If you feel their techniques are working that's an even better measure
Good point. I have this thing where I like to watch a class first, I don't do this when I go overseas though. I just jump straight in.
Look at the students. Obseeve their overall fitness and the power and effectiveness of their technique AND the mutual respect. They are a reflection of the teacher. DO NOT JUDGE SOMEONE BY WHAT THEY SAY BUT BY WHAT THEY CAN DO. Regards koyo
I've been reading this thread with interest as it started with the idea that Aikido has gone in the "wrong" direction. It begs two questions: Do we know what the "right direction" is? Should we all be going in the same direction? As for the point about the current Doshu' influence I was quite suprised when he was described as just like O'Sensei by the late Arikawa Sensei; a resident Hombu student/teacher from 1948 until his death a few years ago.
Hi Philip and welcome Even within a single club we shall find "differing" approaches to aikido. I would not like to think that students become "CLONES" of the instructor. A teacher should not "stamp his personality" on students. Indeed I think that example is a better definition of instructor. He should provide an example of sincerity, spirit and respect to the students and continue to learn alongside them. WE must all FIND our own aikido. It is when some CREATE their own aikido by choosing certain elements from the whole and discarding others.Even distorting certain elements be they spiritual or martial.This I disagree with. We must NOT change (as Rebel puts it) the HEART of the art. I began posting on MAP to redress the negative attitude to aikido presented by many non aikidoka so all of my posts have stressed the martial aspect of the art. This may have led some to think that this is all I see in the art which is not so.However I do feel that this is an area lost to many present day students. You need only look at the profiles of those posting to see that there are AIKIDOKA from "different" schools posting and I for one find much more in common with their thoughts than I find anything to disagree with. Perhaps not the same path but certainly the same direction. regards koyo
Difficult question, and one that could lead to an endless debate... If it is Aikido, then yes, I think so. I would need to see three things to make a statement like this 1) Linear techniques (Kisshomaru did a lot of tenkan, which I was not a fan of) 2) Atemi 3) Kiai (well I would heat that one) Regards,
Maybe this is a mute point someway in this thread, but I trained with Aikikai in the UK for just short of a year. I was really keen on the idea of using technique to counter brute strength, and some of the locks I was taught are still things I refer to. Overall I enjoyed it, but I wanted the self defence and the fitness aspect, but in the end I had to quit because I could have trained years many times a week in this art and still not be able to hold my own with a thug in the street. The whole art as confirmed to me that once you remove certain elements from teaching everything becomes so complacent. Things like competing and sparring are essential to honing ones practice, but I think we did free sparing once in the whole time I was there. This is in complete contrast to an article I read on the beginnings of Aikido, it seems to have attracted people who want a martial art for pacifists. Shame. I think I learned more practical stuff in a couple of months of Judo than I did in the whole year of Aikido. If I ever find a 'hard' Aikido class Im sure I will soon be amoungst its students...
Hi Abclaret Your post really saddens me. So many good martial artists have been lost to aikido because many of todays "teachers" have made it user friendly diluting it until early practisioners hardly recognise it any more. You will always find a friendly (and effecive) welcome at... makotokai.co.uk regards koyo
i think it's worth noting that Aikido is one of the most technically complicated arts around, because of this it takes time to learn how to pull off moves and in the beginning that requires the co-operation of uke. that, alongside the higher levels being adept at ukemi (protecting oneself through breakfalls etc) leads to the general perception that it's a carefully coreographed dance that has no bearing in reality make no bones about it, pull the moves on someone who doesn't know ukemi and wanton damage will ensue - smashed heads, arms ripped from sockets etc etc these techniques are lethal it simply doesn't have the overtly 'as much damage in shortest time' philosophy behind it as so many striking arts do at higher levels of training more and more resistance is gradually introduced to facilitate fine tuning of techniques and Jiyu Waza (freestyle techniques) in my syllabus isn't introduced until 2nd kyu all i'm saying is that after a year i don't think you fully appreciated the depth required to master this art the point being that co-operative lessens serve to teach you the principles it's upto you to master them and then be able to go 'beyond technique' and apply them in a real situation - simply repeating what you've done parrot fashion will never work you might be competant (or confident dependant on how you look at it) in a striking art after a few months, certainly after a year you should be able to handle yourself whereas in Aikido you're really only just beginning to scratch the surface in this max bang for buck in shortest time era i can see why the doubters dismiss it
I've made similar statements in the past my self. But today I would question such a statement. On reflection the basic elements of the Aikido I was taught that made it effective for me were no more complicated than the Judo or even the Boxing I did as a child. Aikido today focuses on technique rather than principles. That's what makes it highly technical and complicated.
I would have to disagree with you in terms of aikido and it's complexity, I do so because it is either as complex (or not) depending upon how deeply you study (and understand), and how far you wish to explore the waza and gensoku behind them. My last yudansha essay focused on the practicalities teaching of principles, this essay was met with mixed (but positive) opinions because, there is no singluar definition of what constitues the "principles of aikido". Talk to a range of shihan and whilst you may well get similar answers they won't be the same. And ask them to be definitive on the subject and I'm fairly sure you'll get different explanations based upon several factors; 1 - being the time in O-sensei's life that, that particular shihan you talk too learned his aikido and.. 2 - How that (now) shihan understood then.. and interprets now what he learned; and how that has since developed over the years. Aikido is a physical budo and despite the ideological and philosohical facets associated with it, it must be studied in a physical way for it to have meaning, so, how do you teach theory (the principles) without teaching physical applications (the mechanics) ? The answer is you can't. The two must equally co-exist hence my earlier statement that aikido can be as complex as you want to make it (or teach to others) but, if you want 'uncomplicated' aikido just study the mechanical however, mechanics don't provide the answers to questions which one might ask one's self or, might be asked of you as an instructor.
